What is your religion and ethnic background?
Well I'm not exactly sure what my ethnic background has to do unless it's for seeing if there is some kind of pattern or something. Well I'm Caucasian and I'm Christian. I don't really claim any denomination as I don't see the point of denominations, to me they seem to be more like cliques than anything.

Are you tolerant of other religions/non-religions?
I don't care as everyone is entitled to their beliefs. I'm to busy living my life to tell someone how to live theirs. However if a person uses said belief to hurt others, I'm not tolerant of it. I also find other people's beliefs and my own incredibly fascinating.

Do you condemn atheists?
No, why would I? They are entitled to their beliefs as am I. If they respect me and my beliefs I can respect them.

Do atheists have lower standards of morals?
No, I've seen Atheist act more "Christ-like" than some Christians. There are messed up people in any kind of group, but there are also plenty of good people too.

Would you knowingly associate with atheists?
Yes, I have no problem associating with someone who has a different belief than me or has a different life style.

Should a public official/representative (E.g. president, senator, judge, etc.) announce their faith as a prerequisite for their position?
I care more about what their views on certain situations are more than I care about their religious beliefs. I don't even care what Party they are apart of, if they have great ideas that can and will help the country they get my vote.

Is atheism a threat to society?
No, the only threat to society are those who are jerks to others.

Are any of your family members atheists?
Probably, not entirely sure as we don't really discuss that type of stuff when we are around each other. We just spend time together as a family.

Would you allow your child to be in a relationship/marry an atheist?
It's not my say who my kid falls in love with. If they fall in love with someone with a different belief or of someone of the same sex, I would never disown my child or love them less. So yeah.

Why do you think people are atheists?
Everyone views the world differently and I can't expect everyone to have the same beliefs as me.

What is your religion and ethnic background?
Caucasian atheist, former Jehovah's Witness

Are you tolerant of other religions/non-religions?
My general answer would be that I'm tolerant of religious people (so long as they don't try to force their beliefs on others), but not of religion in itself.

Do you condemn atheists?
So long as they don't hurt others or work against societal and/or scientific progress -- no. Same approach as I have to all people.

Do atheists have lower standards of morals?
Morals is something that varies from person to person, but as a general rule -- no.
In fact, often times they seem to have higher standards of morals than religious people (see: persecution of LGBT people for instance)

Would you knowingly associate with atheists?
Yes.

Should a public official/representative (E.g. president, senator, judge, etc.) announce their faith as a prerequisite for their position?
Religion should never, EVER be mixed in with politics. Therefore, there should not be requirement for certain religious beliefs for any positions. However, I would like to know as much about a candidate before I vote for them. Wouldn't want creationists on science boards or conservatives in positions that can affect societal development.

Is atheism a threat to society?
No. The way I see it, religion has long since outplayed its part. If there is anything we need more of in the world, it's secularism. And atheism is one way of bringing forth secularism.

Are any of your family members atheists?
One of my uncles and my grand-uncle is. Aside from that -- none that I know of.

Would you allow your child to be in a relationship/marry an atheist?
Yes.

Why do you think people are atheists?
Because the evidence for the existence of any gods are lacking (nonexistent).

Hayagriva
If you do not believe in a "divine force" of some type, then you believe yourself or humanity as a whole to be the most advanced and powerful entity in the universe. There are plenty of arrogant atheists just as there are plenty of arrogant religious people, so it seems to be true.

That is not at all the case. How does that even make sense?

Hayagriva
There is a caveat to atheism, of course. The universe is integrated. You look long enough, you look hard enough, you realize it is a profound system of gears, reaching beyond the current means of mathematical calculations we can come up with. No rational intelligent person can be confronted with that and say it's a colossal accident. It would take a special kind of blindness.

Why is it blind to say that the universe is naturalistic? Your claim seems rather unsubstantiated.

mdmrn Based on my faith, I am commanded to love those who may be my enemies, including spiritual enemies (i.e. those who don't believe what I believe).

Not to be rude or anything, but this makes you seem like nothing but a mere puppet, blindly following orders. Like you're only holding this opinion because you're commanded to, not because that is the opinion you'd have you weren't commanded to have a certain opinion on the subject.

What is your religion and ethnic background?
-African American;Atheist

Are you tolerant of other religions/non-religions?
-Tolerant?Yes.Unless they are extremist and try to force their beliefs on me.

Do you condemn atheists?
-No.

Do atheists have lower standards of morals?
-No.Just because you don't read a certain religious book,doesn't mean you have a lower level of morality.

Would you knowingly associate with atheists?
-Sure.It doesn't really matter who I'm talking to,as long as the discussions are meaningful.

Should a public official/representative (E.g. president, senator, judge, etc.) announce their faith as a prerequisite for their position?
-No.Religion should not qualify as a credential when applying for any job.

Is atheism a threat to society?
-No.If anything, religion posses a larger threat.

Are any of your family members atheists?
-Yes.

Would you allow your child to be in a relationship/marry an atheist?
-Sure.I don't really care who they marry,as long as they are happy.

Why do you think people are atheists?
-Perhaps it's because they wish to look for a more logical approach to life and do not think that religion is the proper way to find it.

Hayagriva
If you do not believe in a "divine force" of some type, then you believe yourself or humanity as a whole to be the most advanced and powerful entity in the universe. There are plenty of arrogant atheists just as there are plenty of arrogant religious people, so it seems to be true.

That is not at all the case. How does that even make sense?

Hayagriva
There is a caveat to atheism, of course. The universe is integrated. You look long enough, you look hard enough, you realize it is a profound system of gears, reaching beyond the current means of mathematical calculations we can come up with. No rational intelligent person can be confronted with that and say it's a colossal accident. It would take a special kind of blindness.

Why is it blind to say that the universe is naturalistic? Your claim seems rather unsubstantiated.

For the first statement, that one isn't mine. Something I had heard. For the second part of that first statement - that there are plenty of arrogant atheists - that can't be denied.

My second statement was not refuting naturalism, I was actually referring to it directly. However, it is flawlessly integrated into its own naturalism - the general dualism and separation of cause and effect people typically adhere to are the mistakes I was referring to as blindness. Because reality APPEARS to be disjointed to many atheists, they cannot see any semblance of a natural order - when there most certainly is, outside of pure biology, and in fact is so massively complex that no human being would live long enough to ever see it all or run enough mathematical calculations for it. Such a structure cannot be an accident, and therefore the "randomness" many people perceive is therefore a type of blindness.

For the first statement, that one isn't mine. Something I had heard. For the second part of that first statement - that there are plenty of arrogant atheists - that can't be denied.

My second statement was not refuting naturalism, I was actually referring to it directly. However, it is flawlessly integrated into its own naturalism - the general dualism and separation of cause and effect people typically adhere to are the mistakes I was referring to as blindness. Because reality APPEARS to be disjointed to many atheists, they cannot see any semblance of a natural order - when there most certainly is, outside of pure biology, and in fact is so massively complex that no human being would live long enough to ever see it all or run enough mathematical calculations for it. Such a structure cannot be an accident, and therefore the "randomness" many people perceive is therefore a type of blindness.

But how are the two parts of the first one connected? You seemed to imply that the second part validates the claim in the first part.

And I still don't see why the structure of the universe could not be a product of itself. To assert such a thing with 100% certainty seems rather arrogant to me.
And if it's not an "accident", then what is it?

But how are the two parts of the first one connected? You seemed to imply that the second part validates the claim in the first part.

And I still don't see why the structure of the universe could not be a product of itself. To assert such a thing with 100% certainty seems rather arrogant to me.
And if it's not an "accident", then what is it?

The first statement was simple process of elimination. If there is no divine force of some kind, then we are the ultimate creation. That says something, subconsciously, to many atheists as far as I've seen.

As for the second, the universe isn't static, as I'm sure you've noticed. We are not refuse vomited everywhere via the Big Bang. There are systems everywhere, and they are all linked. We don't know how it originated, or how it keeps going. We cannot make a case for intelligent design per se, we can only eliminate "randomness" and separatism/duality as falsehoods, because they are.

Hayagriva
If you do not believe in a "divine force" of some type, then you believe yourself or humanity as a whole to be the most advanced and powerful entity in the universe. There are plenty of arrogant atheists just as there are plenty of arrogant religious people, so it seems to be true.

That is not at all the case. How does that even make sense?

Hayagriva
There is a caveat to atheism, of course. The universe is integrated. You look long enough, you look hard enough, you realize it is a profound system of gears, reaching beyond the current means of mathematical calculations we can come up with. No rational intelligent person can be confronted with that and say it's a colossal accident. It would take a special kind of blindness.

Why is it blind to say that the universe is naturalistic? Your claim seems rather unsubstantiated.

For the first statement, that one isn't mine. Something I had heard. For the second part of that first statement - that there are plenty of arrogant atheists - that can't be denied.

My second statement was not refuting naturalism, I was actually referring to it directly. However, it is flawlessly integrated into its own naturalism - the general dualism and separation of cause and effect people typically adhere to are the mistakes I was referring to as blindness. Because reality APPEARS to be disjointed to many atheists, they cannot see any semblance of a natural order - when there most certainly is, outside of pure biology, and in fact is so massively complex that no human being would live long enough to ever see it all or run enough mathematical calculations for it. Such a structure cannot be an accident, and therefore the "randomness" many people perceive is therefore a type of blindness.

But how are the two parts of the first one connected? You seemed to imply that the second part validates the claim in the first part.

And I still don't see why the structure of the universe could not be a product of itself. To assert such a thing with 100% certainty seems rather arrogant to me.
And if it's not an "accident", then what is it?

The first statement was simple process of elimination. If there is no divine force of some kind, then we are the ultimate creation. That says something, subconsciously, to many atheists as far as I've seen.

As for the second, the universe isn't static, as I'm sure you've noticed. We are not refuse vomited everywhere via the Big Bang. There are systems everywhere, and they are all linked. We don't know how it originated, or how it keeps going. We cannot make a case for intelligent design per se, we can only eliminate "randomness" and separatism/duality as falsehoods, because they are.

Consider what I'm proposing as a kind of naturalistic agnosticism.

Why? Why is that so? What sense does that make?
I have never, ever heard any atheists say such a thing. In fact, that is the sort of thing that I'd hear from religious people more than anything, seeing as they believe that humans are somehow a higher creation completely seperate from the rest of the animals on earth.

In terms of how the universe works, have you considered that the order of the universe might be as it is because it HAS to? Because of the innate properties of the universe? Or how about the multiverse hypothesis?

Hayagriva
If you do not believe in a "divine force" of some type, then you believe yourself or humanity as a whole to be the most advanced and powerful entity in the universe. There are plenty of arrogant atheists just as there are plenty of arrogant religious people, so it seems to be true.

That is not at all the case. How does that even make sense?

Hayagriva
There is a caveat to atheism, of course. The universe is integrated. You look long enough, you look hard enough, you realize it is a profound system of gears, reaching beyond the current means of mathematical calculations we can come up with. No rational intelligent person can be confronted with that and say it's a colossal accident. It would take a special kind of blindness.

Why is it blind to say that the universe is naturalistic? Your claim seems rather unsubstantiated.

For the first statement, that one isn't mine. Something I had heard. For the second part of that first statement - that there are plenty of arrogant atheists - that can't be denied.

My second statement was not refuting naturalism, I was actually referring to it directly. However, it is flawlessly integrated into its own naturalism - the general dualism and separation of cause and effect people typically adhere to are the mistakes I was referring to as blindness. Because reality APPEARS to be disjointed to many atheists, they cannot see any semblance of a natural order - when there most certainly is, outside of pure biology, and in fact is so massively complex that no human being would live long enough to ever see it all or run enough mathematical calculations for it. Such a structure cannot be an accident, and therefore the "randomness" many people perceive is therefore a type of blindness.

But how are the two parts of the first one connected? You seemed to imply that the second part validates the claim in the first part.

And I still don't see why the structure of the universe could not be a product of itself. To assert such a thing with 100% certainty seems rather arrogant to me.
And if it's not an "accident", then what is it?

The first statement was simple process of elimination. If there is no divine force of some kind, then we are the ultimate creation. That says something, subconsciously, to many atheists as far as I've seen.

As for the second, the universe isn't static, as I'm sure you've noticed. We are not refuse vomited everywhere via the Big Bang. There are systems everywhere, and they are all linked. We don't know how it originated, or how it keeps going. We cannot make a case for intelligent design per se, we can only eliminate "randomness" and separatism/duality as falsehoods, because they are.

Consider what I'm proposing as a kind of naturalistic agnosticism.

Why? Why is that so? What sense does that make?
I have never, ever heard any atheists say such a thing. In fact, that is the sort of thing that I'd hear from religious people more than anything, seeing as they believe that humans are somehow a higher creation completely seperate from the rest of the animals on earth.

In terms of how the universe works, have you considered that the order of the universe might be as it is because it HAS to? Because of the innate properties of the universe? Or how about the multiverse hypothesis?

The first statement is usually a reference to some cognitive superiority or some such. We are animals, but we're the only ones who can alter our environment to such a degree. Gibberish like that. Please stop bashing me with that statement as though I was the originator of it. It was anecdotal at best.

Why does the universe have to? How did those innate properties become defined, and why? Why are we able to observe any systems at all? The functional point has to be that although we can't know enough to confirm or deny intelligent design, we can observe many designs have intelligence. Intelligence is not a random thing, it is not produced through interactions of known phenomena. That doubt, coupled with our faculty for observation is all that is required to understand that it's not all a colossal accident.

Don't get me started on the multiverse, theoretical math with so many problems has no place here. We're talking about directly observable systems, and more importantly, how change itself functions.

Hayagriva
If you do not believe in a "divine force" of some type, then you believe yourself or humanity as a whole to be the most advanced and powerful entity in the universe. There are plenty of arrogant atheists just as there are plenty of arrogant religious people, so it seems to be true.

That is not at all the case. How does that even make sense?

Hayagriva
There is a caveat to atheism, of course. The universe is integrated. You look long enough, you look hard enough, you realize it is a profound system of gears, reaching beyond the current means of mathematical calculations we can come up with. No rational intelligent person can be confronted with that and say it's a colossal accident. It would take a special kind of blindness.

Why is it blind to say that the universe is naturalistic? Your claim seems rather unsubstantiated.

For the first statement, that one isn't mine. Something I had heard. For the second part of that first statement - that there are plenty of arrogant atheists - that can't be denied.

My second statement was not refuting naturalism, I was actually referring to it directly. However, it is flawlessly integrated into its own naturalism - the general dualism and separation of cause and effect people typically adhere to are the mistakes I was referring to as blindness. Because reality APPEARS to be disjointed to many atheists, they cannot see any semblance of a natural order - when there most certainly is, outside of pure biology, and in fact is so massively complex that no human being would live long enough to ever see it all or run enough mathematical calculations for it. Such a structure cannot be an accident, and therefore the "randomness" many people perceive is therefore a type of blindness.

But how are the two parts of the first one connected? You seemed to imply that the second part validates the claim in the first part.

And I still don't see why the structure of the universe could not be a product of itself. To assert such a thing with 100% certainty seems rather arrogant to me.
And if it's not an "accident", then what is it?

The first statement was simple process of elimination. If there is no divine force of some kind, then we are the ultimate creation. That says something, subconsciously, to many atheists as far as I've seen.

As for the second, the universe isn't static, as I'm sure you've noticed. We are not refuse vomited everywhere via the Big Bang. There are systems everywhere, and they are all linked. We don't know how it originated, or how it keeps going. We cannot make a case for intelligent design per se, we can only eliminate "randomness" and separatism/duality as falsehoods, because they are.

Consider what I'm proposing as a kind of naturalistic agnosticism.

Why? Why is that so? What sense does that make?
I have never, ever heard any atheists say such a thing. In fact, that is the sort of thing that I'd hear from religious people more than anything, seeing as they believe that humans are somehow a higher creation completely seperate from the rest of the animals on earth.

In terms of how the universe works, have you considered that the order of the universe might be as it is because it HAS to? Because of the innate properties of the universe? Or how about the multiverse hypothesis?

The first statement is usually a reference to some cognitive superiority or some such. We are animals, but we're the only ones who can alter our environment to such a degree. Gibberish like that. Please stop bashing me with that statement as though I was the originator of it. It was anecdotal at best.

Why does the universe have to? How did those innate properties become defined, and why? Why are we able to observe any systems at all? The functional point has to be that although we can't know enough to confirm or deny intelligent design, we can observe many designs have intelligence. Intelligence is not a random thing, it is not produced through interactions of known phenomena. That doubt, coupled with our faculty for observation is all that is required to understand that it's not all a colossal accident.

Don't get me started on the multiverse, theoretical math with so many problems has no place here. We're talking about directly observable systems, and more importantly, how change itself functions.

But that still doesn't mean we are the most sublime beings in all the universe. There could be life on other planets that are higher than us, for instance.
And once again, I have never, ever seen anyone say that. No atheists anyway. So please discard the notion in its entirety, because it is very much false.

You seem to be expecting us to know everything. And conclude that because we don't know, that means "design". That is what we call the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. And I would appreciate it if you never, ever stoop to a level intellectually low enough to use that fallacy as an argument for design.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

You basicly have nothing but an assumption based on your limited understanding. Nature is not comparable to clockwork or general machinery.

Hayagriva
If you do not believe in a "divine force" of some type, then you believe yourself or humanity as a whole to be the most advanced and powerful entity in the universe. There are plenty of arrogant atheists just as there are plenty of arrogant religious people, so it seems to be true.

That is not at all the case. How does that even make sense?

Hayagriva
There is a caveat to atheism, of course. The universe is integrated. You look long enough, you look hard enough, you realize it is a profound system of gears, reaching beyond the current means of mathematical calculations we can come up with. No rational intelligent person can be confronted with that and say it's a colossal accident. It would take a special kind of blindness.

Why is it blind to say that the universe is naturalistic? Your claim seems rather unsubstantiated.

For the first statement, that one isn't mine. Something I had heard. For the second part of that first statement - that there are plenty of arrogant atheists - that can't be denied.

My second statement was not refuting naturalism, I was actually referring to it directly. However, it is flawlessly integrated into its own naturalism - the general dualism and separation of cause and effect people typically adhere to are the mistakes I was referring to as blindness. Because reality APPEARS to be disjointed to many atheists, they cannot see any semblance of a natural order - when there most certainly is, outside of pure biology, and in fact is so massively complex that no human being would live long enough to ever see it all or run enough mathematical calculations for it. Such a structure cannot be an accident, and therefore the "randomness" many people perceive is therefore a type of blindness.

But how are the two parts of the first one connected? You seemed to imply that the second part validates the claim in the first part.

And I still don't see why the structure of the universe could not be a product of itself. To assert such a thing with 100% certainty seems rather arrogant to me.
And if it's not an "accident", then what is it?

The first statement was simple process of elimination. If there is no divine force of some kind, then we are the ultimate creation. That says something, subconsciously, to many atheists as far as I've seen.

As for the second, the universe isn't static, as I'm sure you've noticed. We are not refuse vomited everywhere via the Big Bang. There are systems everywhere, and they are all linked. We don't know how it originated, or how it keeps going. We cannot make a case for intelligent design per se, we can only eliminate "randomness" and separatism/duality as falsehoods, because they are.

Consider what I'm proposing as a kind of naturalistic agnosticism.

Why? Why is that so? What sense does that make?
I have never, ever heard any atheists say such a thing. In fact, that is the sort of thing that I'd hear from religious people more than anything, seeing as they believe that humans are somehow a higher creation completely seperate from the rest of the animals on earth.

In terms of how the universe works, have you considered that the order of the universe might be as it is because it HAS to? Because of the innate properties of the universe? Or how about the multiverse hypothesis?

The first statement is usually a reference to some cognitive superiority or some such. We are animals, but we're the only ones who can alter our environment to such a degree. Gibberish like that. Please stop bashing me with that statement as though I was the originator of it. It was anecdotal at best.

Why does the universe have to? How did those innate properties become defined, and why? Why are we able to observe any systems at all? The functional point has to be that although we can't know enough to confirm or deny intelligent design, we can observe many designs have intelligence. Intelligence is not a random thing, it is not produced through interactions of known phenomena. That doubt, coupled with our faculty for observation is all that is required to understand that it's not all a colossal accident.

Don't get me started on the multiverse, theoretical math with so many problems has no place here. We're talking about directly observable systems, and more importantly, how change itself functions.

But that still doesn't mean we are the most sublime beings in all the universe. There could be life on other planets that are higher than us, for instance.
And once again, I have never, ever seen anyone say that. No atheists anyway. So please discard the notion in its entirety, because it is very much false.

You seem to be expecting us to know everything. And conclude that because we don't know, that means "design". That is what we call the "argument from ignorance" fallacy. And I would appreciate it if you never, ever stoop to a level intellectually low enough to use that fallacy as an argument for design.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

You basicly have nothing but an assumption based on your limited understanding. Nature is not comparable to clockwork or general machinery.

I don't expect us to know everything, in fact I explicitly stated as such. I said we can observe at least partially many systems, and that because they are so complex and arrange themselves into patterns that we can directly observe and apply them as modes to other systems, that it cannot be random. Because it isn't. Don't make pointless assumptions about such a methodology simply because you've never tried it.

I would appreciate if people never, ever stoop to a level intellectually low enough to assume that because a deity (which is wholly irrelevant to my point) cannot be proven, that any and all order in the universe must be random simply because they cannot be bothered to look. That's far worse than me giving you a handout and a step up of natural agnosticism. Don't forget, religions are antiquated systems of examining or trying to explain reality pre-science. But some philosophies hold up just fine regardless of how many discoveries we make.

Go read some Taoism. Stop assuming that we can either never know anything, OR that we know enough to not bother looking and drawing parallels of reality. That's really all I have to say, and you and I have gone far enough off the original topic as it is.

If there is a God that can speak to a person, every time I've heard Him, He sure sounds a lot like me.

If there was a divine power that created everything, what is the difference between intent and disregard in this world we create for ourselves? To assume we were created with some intentional outcome is awfully narrow minded. For this, atheism scores a point.

Agnosticism keeps getting called a cop-out, but what if you really don't care enough about these answers to ask the question in the first place? No points scored.

The ideal person seems to be driven in the same path of fairness, of empathy, of no judgement regardless of our station in life or our religious backing. There is a correct path. For this, any kind of deism scores a point.

There are things we can do that God either can't do or chooses not to do. Miracles exist, and from what I've taken, at least half of them are performed by humankind itself.

To not mask any intentions, I would like to say that I am generally on the losing side of things, and it is not different in this case. I am an agnostic that borders on atheism. But nothing I've written here is dishonest. There is a correct path, there is no intent mortality could understand, there is no reason asking these questions.

What is your religion and ethnic background?
Raised in a Buddhist household. Grew up atheist. Currently a follower of Jesus Christ.

Are you tolerant of other religions/non-religions?
I respect them but I don't give them any credibility.

Do you condemn atheists?
Not really. I'm in no power to condemn anyone lol

Do atheists have lower standards of morals?
Depends on the guy. Morality is subjective

Would you knowingly associate with atheists?
I do on a daily basis. Sometimes I tolerate them more than Christians.

Should a public official/representative (E.g. president, senator, judge, etc.) announce their faith as a prerequisite for their position?
Should they? They're not gonna truly know their spiritual status. Haven't you heard of Catholic priests molesting children?

Is atheism a threat to society?
Just as much as any religion is.

Are any of your family members atheists?
Half and half are Christian and Buddhist.

Would you allow your child to be in a relationship/marry an atheist?
If my children want anything, they're gonna have to know that things don't just come to you easily. They'll learn whether they made good decisions or not so why not let them?

Why do you think people are atheists?
They probably haven't found a reason to believe in God yet. The man has to fall and realize he can't do it on his own.

Additional thoughts/comments regarding atheists?
They're not good people. They're not intentionally bad people either. Just like the rest of the earth's population. Everyone is wicked in their own ways and that's just not something we can justify. Not even the super religious high-priests.

Hayagriva
I don't expect us to know everything, in fact I explicitly stated as such. I said we can observe at least partially many systems, and that because they are so complex and arrange themselves into patterns that we can directly observe and apply them as modes to other systems, that it cannot be random. Because it isn't. Don't make pointless assumptions about such a methodology simply because you've never tried it.

I would appreciate if people never, ever stoop to a level intellectually low enough to assume that because a deity (which is wholly irrelevant to my point) cannot be proven, that any and all order in the universe must be random simply because they cannot be bothered to look. That's far worse than me giving you a handout and a step up of natural agnosticism. Don't forget, religions are antiquated systems of examining or trying to explain reality pre-science. But some philosophies hold up just fine regardless of how many discoveries we make.

Go read some Taoism. Stop assuming that we can either never know anything, OR that we know enough to not bother looking and drawing parallels of reality. That's really all I have to say, and you and I have gone far enough off the original topic as it is.

Why can it not be random? What is it that makes you so absolutely, 100% sure of that? Is it just because you can't concieve of it happening randomly? Because that's not a good enough reason.
The rest of the scientific community doesn't seem to share your opinion, so why you're so proud of your methodology, I fail to see, lest you give further explanation. And while you're at it, why not submit a scientific paper up for peer review?

You seem to believe that design is the default position of any rational mind. It's not. Aside from inability to concieve otherwise, there is no reason to believe in a designer. At least as far as I've seen.
And are you saying that the nature of reality is a matter of philosophy?

Why would I read up on religion? Philosophy and religion is irrelevant when it comes to explaining reality. Only science -- that which can be backed up with evidence matters.
Sure, there COULD be a designer, but I have absolutely no reason to believe in it. As such, I see no point in even considering it until I see indication for it. Especially since a designer of the universe would require even more complexity than the thing the designer created. And then what? Where did that designer come from? Are there just an infinite amount of more powerful designers beyond the next designer?

Hayagriva
I don't expect us to know everything, in fact I explicitly stated as such. I said we can observe at least partially many systems, and that because they are so complex and arrange themselves into patterns that we can directly observe and apply them as modes to other systems, that it cannot be random. Because it isn't. Don't make pointless assumptions about such a methodology simply because you've never tried it.

I would appreciate if people never, ever stoop to a level intellectually low enough to assume that because a deity (which is wholly irrelevant to my point) cannot be proven, that any and all order in the universe must be random simply because they cannot be bothered to look. That's far worse than me giving you a handout and a step up of natural agnosticism. Don't forget, religions are antiquated systems of examining or trying to explain reality pre-science. But some philosophies hold up just fine regardless of how many discoveries we make.

Go read some Taoism. Stop assuming that we can either never know anything, OR that we know enough to not bother looking and drawing parallels of reality. That's really all I have to say, and you and I have gone far enough off the original topic as it is.

Why can it not be random? What is it that makes you so absolutely, 100% sure of that? Is it just because you can't concieve of it happening randomly? Because that's not a good enough reason.
The rest of the scientific community doesn't seem to share your opinion, so why you're so proud of your methodology, I fail to see, lest you give further explanation. And while you're at it, why not submit a scientific paper up for peer review?

You seem to believe that design is the default position of any rational mind. It's not. Aside from inability to concieve otherwise, there is no reason to believe in a designer. At least as far as I've seen.
And are you saying that the nature of reality is a matter of philosophy?

Why would I read up on religion? Philosophy and religion is irrelevant when it comes to explaining reality. Only science -- that which can be backed up with evidence matters.
Sure, there COULD be a designer, but I have absolutely no reason to believe in it. As such, I see no point in even considering it until I see indication for it. Especially since a designer of the universe would require even more complexity than the thing the designer created. And then what? Where did that designer come from? Are there just an infinite amount of more powerful designers beyond the next designer?

Why does it have to be random? What makes you so absolutely, 100% sure of that?

Technically it's just your word against mine. But I already considered and studied both possibilities. You haven't. Those are the facts.

Taoism isn't a religion. It's a philosophy backed up by science. You would know that if you bothered.

Yeah, we're pretty much done here. If you're not going to do any of the legwork at all, we'll have to agree to disagree.